Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Subchi, Imam, Zulkifli
Zulkifli, Rena Latifa, and Sholikatus
Sa’diyah. 2022. Religious Moderation
in Indonesian Muslims. Religions 13:
451. https://doi.org/10.3390/
rel13050451
Academic Editors: Stefan Huber,
Sarah Demmrich, Shanmukh
V. Kamble and Klaus Baumann
Received: 20 January 2022
Accepted: 12 May 2022
Published: 17 May 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
religions
Article
Religious Moderation in Indonesian Muslims
Imam Subchi 1, Zulkifli Zulkifli 2, Rena Latifa 3, * and Sholikatus Sa’diyah 1
1Faculty of Adab and Humanities, Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta,
Jakarta 15412, Indonesia; imam.subchi@uinjkt.ac.id (I.S.); sholikatus.sadiyah@uinjkt.ac.id (S.S.)
2Faculty of Social and Political Science, Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta,
Jakarta 15412, Indonesia; zulkifli@uinjkt.ac.id
3Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, Jakarta 15412, Indonesia
*Correspondence: rena.latifa@uinjkt.ac.id
Abstract:
Indonesia receives a high religious harmony index every year; however, intolerance and
religious radicalism threaten this harmony. Moderate Islam (Islamic religious moderation) has
become a national policy as a solution to prevent intolerance and radicalism. In this study, we
aimed to determine the factors influencing religious moderation. We examined the variables of
religiosity and demographics, which play essential roles in forming religious moderation. A total
of 578 students at state Islamic universities in Indonesia participated in this research. We measured
religiosity with the Centrality of Religiosity Scale (CRS-5) by Huber and Huber. The CRS-5 consists of
five dimensions: intellect, ideology, public practice, private practice, and religious experience, which
we adapted to the Indonesian language. The Religious Moderation Scale consists of three dimensions:
national commitment, rejecting violence, and accommodating culture. We collected data through
questionnaires that we distributed online, and we analyzed the responses using multiple regression
analysis. The results show that religiosity positively affected religious moderation, meaning that
religious intellectuality, ideology, public practice, private practice, and religious experience supported
a person in being moderately religious and might prevent intolerance and radicalism. Socioeconomic
factors (sex and parents’ income) also strongly affected religious moderation.
Keywords: religious moderation; tolerance; intolerance; Indonesian Muslim; religiosity
1. Introduction
Indonesia is diverse in ethnicities, languages, religions, and beliefs. Given this condi-
tion, social harmony must be managed in Indonesia. However, intolerance, which disrupts
harmony, especially between religious communities, has recently increased in Indonesia.
Forms of intolerance can be more diminutive, including a lack of mutual understanding,
less mutual respect, and less respect for differences in beliefs.
Several surveys conducted by the Setara Institute (2019) showed increasing intolerance
among schools and students between 2007 and 2018. In addition, the number of violations
of religious freedom increased from 134 cases in 2014 to 208 in 2016, and the number of
intolerant actions also rose from 177 in 2014 to 270 in 2016.
One of the efforts implemented to manage and improve religious harmony was the
launching of the concept and policy of religious moderation by the Indonesian Ministry of
Religion. The Ministry of Religion describes the characteristics of individuals who practice
religious moderation, namely if they apply religious tolerance, show national commitment,
and accommodate local culture. Religious moderation aims to create a public attitude of a
moderate, not extreme, understanding of religion and not glorify unlimited free-thinking
in realizing a harmonious and peaceful life within the diversity in Indonesia.
Suhartawan (2021) stated that religious moderation allows people to maximize the
benefits of religious and state institutions and provides for the education of future gener-
ations, the building of cross-generational collaboration, the improvement in the quality
Religions 2022,13, 451. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13050451 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/religions
Religions 2022,13, 451 2 of 11
of a more open religious understanding, and the creation of a dialogue between culture,
religious and state leaders.
As a new concept and policy in Indonesia, religious moderation requires further study
as research in this area is still limited. Ali (2020) measured religious moderation among
356 students at two universities in Kalimantan. As a result, the descriptive analysis pro-
vided the percentage of those considered religiously moderate. Ali found that although
students had low levels of knowledge, participation, and experience in religious moder-
ation, they had high levels of attitudes and behavior toward the dimensions of religious
moderation: religious tolerance (91.5%), national commitment (95.6%), and accommo-
dating local culture (94.9%). However, Ali did not determine the factors contributing to
religious moderation.
In this study, we aimed to determine the factors influencing religious moderation.
We examined the variables of religiosity and demographics that play an essential role in
forming religious moderation.
Religious moderation is generally understood as the tolerance of a religious group
toward different faiths while simultaneously refraining from liberalism. Thus, the concept
of religious moderation, particularly among Indonesian Muslims, is defined using the
ideas of the concept and the policy of religious moderation by the Indonesian Ministry of
Religion. The Ministry of Religion describes the characteristics of individuals who apply
religious moderation, namely if they show religious tolerance and national commitment
and accommodate local culture.
The first variable that we hypothesized would predict religious moderation is reli-
giosity. Religiosity generally refers to the observable concrete ways individuals or groups
express the multiple dimensions of religion. Many definitions and measurements of the
concept from Christian tradition have been developed since Glock and Stark’s (1965) five
dimensions of religiosity: belief, practice, knowledge, experience, and consequence. Sev-
eral conceptions and measurements of Muslim religiosity have also been formulated. For
instance, Riaz Hassan (2007b) explicitly drew on the work of Stark and Glock to measure
Muslim religious piety. In this study, for the measurement of religiosity, we used Huber
and Huber’s (2012) model with five dimensions: intellectual, ideology, public practice,
private practice, and religious experience, called the Centrality of Religiosity Scale (CRS).
The dimensions are described as follows:
Intellectual refers to the social expectation that religious people tend to have religious
knowledge and the frequency of thinking about religious topics. The ideological dimension
refers to the social expectation that religious people tend to have faith in the existence and
power of God and the plausibility of the presence or power of God. The public practice
dimension refers to the social expectation that religious people participate in public rituals
and communal activities and participate in public religious services and activities. The
private practice dimension refers to the social expectation that religious people perform
religious rituals and personal service styles such as prayer and meditation, including
intensity and personal religious rituals. The dimension of religious experience refers to the
social expectation that religious people tend to have some kind of contact with God, who
emotionally influences a person’s life.
Regarding the concept of religiosity by Huber and Huber (2012), we thought that
those with a high level of religiosity would have a high level of religious moderation. This
means that religious intellectuality, ideology, public practice, private practice, and religious
experience support someone in being a moderately religious person (high in religious
tolerance, national commitment, and accommodating local culture). Conversely, we believe
that religious intolerance, low national commitment, and low accommodation of local
culture would be prevented if a person has high religious intellectuality, ideology, private
practice, and religious experience.
Golebiowska (2004) reported that religiosity is an essential predictor of tolerant behav-
ior amongst people of faith, where tolerance is the concept of religious moderation. The
study results show that religiosity positively and significantly affects religious moderation
Religions 2022,13, 451 3 of 11
(tolerance). Hoffman (2020) also found that religious practices, one of the dimensions of re-
ligiosity, also predict religious harmony or moderation, further supporting our hypothesis.
Because religious moderation is close to religious tolerance, several researchers have
examined the relationship between religiosity and tolerance, both religious tolerance and
social and political tolerance. The results of these studies on the relevance of religiosity
and tolerance are complex and contradictory. The results show that religiosity can either
increase or decrease tolerance. Other results reveal that religiosity is not related to tolerance
(Spierings 2019). The findings may have been caused by differences in the concept of
religiosity used.
Yusuf et al. (2020) found that the level of religiosity is closely related to religious
intolerance. Their analysis of the effect of socio-economic characteristics and religiosity
on religious intolerance found that religiosity was the only variable at the individual
level that had a statistically significant and robust relationship with all types of religious
intolerance. Other factors related to intolerance included income levels, quality of work,
and higher education.
By contrast, Setiawan et al. (2020) found that Muslim community members supported
inter-religious conflicts. Religiosity plays an essential but different role in supporting
inter-religious conflicts in society, including Indonesia. Different dimensions of religiosity
have different connections with religious conflicts. Although religious belief has strong
influences, its effect varies. Additionally, particularistic views and intertextual fundamen-
talism tend to support the lawful protest. Religious centrism contributes to supporting
lawful and violent protests. The religious practice of religiosity is not simply related to
support of inter-religious conflict; still, a rite of the passage appears to be an essential factor
contributing to inter-religious conflict rather than participation in ordinary religious rituals.
Conversely, religious salience harms support for violent hostility toward outgroups.
Hoffman (2020) revealed that religious behavior in the Arab world, in general, has an
ambiguous influence on tolerance. People who frequently attend mosques tend to be more
intolerant of other sects than people who rarely attend. In Lebanon, the process occurs
through a group identification mechanism. Attendance at mosques encourages a higher
sectarian identification, making adherents feel different from other denominations. Partici-
pation in communal worship increases sectarian solidarity at the expense of sympathy for
other denominations.
Conversely, private worship positively influences tolerant attitudes in the Arab world
and Lebanon. “While congregational prayer tends to enhance sectarian identity and
reinforce intolerance, citizens who obey individually—at least, those who pray privately—
tend to be more tolerant of other sects than their less obedient counterparts.” In a sectarian
environment, private religious practice substantially positively affects tolerance.
In research on various aspects of the impact of religiosity on social tolerance in the
Middle East and North Africa, Spierings (2019) found that the degree of religious iden-
tification does not harm social tolerance except for a few cases where Islamist power is
present. Under normal circumstances, those with religious beliefs tend to be more tolerant
of others but less tolerant if they feel threatened or repressed. Attendance at mosques
harms ethnic-religious social tolerance and even strengthens it if a conservative Islamist
state coercively regulates religion and its content, such as sermons.
Hassan (2007a) studied the level of religiosity of Muslim communities in various
parts of the world and its relation to modernity, Muslim umma awareness, and intolerance
(blasphemy). Hassan found that religiosity does not affect modernity, especially the Hu-
man Development Index. However, as many scholars affirmed, he found that religiosity
positively affects intolerance, especially blasphemy. PPIM research has produced different
results: students with a high religiosity tend to have moderate religious attitudes and
behavior. Thus, religiosity has a positive effect on religious tolerance. Due to the con-
tradictions in the previous findings on the impact of religious tolerance, we examined
the effects of the religiosity variable on religious moderation in this study. We also con-
sidered several demographic variables as factors influencing religious moderation. The
Religions 2022,13, 451 4 of 11
first demographic variable was sex (identified as male and female). Theories show that
sex substantially affects religious moderation. According to Çavdar (2010), women show
higher religious moderation than men. Sex influences one’s level of religious moderation.
Van der Jagt et al. (2018)
also reported a notable effect of sex on religious moderation, a
concept of religious harmony/disharmony in that study.
The second demographic variable we hypothesized as affecting religious modera-
tion was student organizations. We expected religious moderation to be influenced by
sociology, and a student organization is one of the social constructs. We theorized that
student organizations positively and significantly affect religious moderation, meaning
that students involved in student organizations have higher religious moderation than
those who are not. This hypothesis is supported by Hendrastomo et al. (2019), who showed
that the more social the individual, the more moderate they are through association with a
student organization.
The third and fourth demographic factors that we theorized would predict religious
moderation were the economic status variables, namely parental income and the amount
of allowance, respectively. We hypothesized that parental income and allowance amount
would positively and significantly predict religious moderation. The higher the parental
income and the higher the allowance, the higher the religious moderation. Based on the
annual survey of religious harmony by the Ministry of Religious Affairs (2020), socio-
economic factors affect the religious harmony index so that harmony can describe the
religious moderation index.
2. Materials and Method
2.1. Participants and Sampling Procedures
We employed a quantitative approach by administering a survey in July 2020 to all
students of Indonesia’s state Islamic higher educational institutions. The sample was sixth-
semester undergraduate Muslim students at state Islamic higher educational institutions in
the western, middle, and eastern areas of Indonesia, totaling 578 students (N = 578). We
used a multistage systematic sampling technique. We started by selecting state Islamic
universities or institutes in western, middle, and eastern Indonesia: UIN Arraniry Banda
Aceh, UIN Raden Fatah Palembang, and UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta in western
Indonesia, UIN Alauddin Makasar and UIN Mataram in middle Indonesia, and IAIN
Ambon and IAIN Sorong in eastern Indonesia. We collected data through questionnaires
consisting of closed-ended questions distributed to students through Google Forms.
2.2. Measurement and Data Analysis
We processed and analyzed the collected data using multiple regression analysis to
examine the effect of several independent variables, namely religiosity and socio-economic
factors (sex, student organization, parents’ income, and allowance amount), on the de-
pendent variable, religious moderation. The hypothesis we examined was that religiosity,
sex, participation in a student organization, parents’ income, and allowance amount affect
religious moderation. We formulated this hypothesis as follows:
Y = a + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3 + b4X4 + b5X5 + e
After we collected and processed the data, we tested the validity of the items, especially
regarding religiosity and religious moderation, using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
We used MPlus 8.4 software to perform the CFA and SPSS v 25 to test the hypothesis.
Unlike the items of religiosity, which were all valid, not all religious moderation items
were valid. Below, we describe the items we used to measure religiosity that we modified
from Huber and Huber (2012).
2.2.1. Religiosity Construct
This study measured religiosity with the Centrality of Religiosity Scale (CRS-5) (Huber
and Huber 2012). Huber and Huber (2012) provided alternatives of 15, 10, or 5 items to
Religions 2022,13, 451 5 of 11
measure religiosity. The CRS-5 has five items and consists of 5 dimensions—intellectual,
ideology, public practice, private practice, and religious experience—which we adapted to
the Indonesian language.
For the translation procedure, we used first-round back-translation (Appendix A). For
the responses, a Likert scale with four points was used (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree,
3 = agree, and 4 = strongly agree).
To test the construct validity of religiosity, we used a multiple-factor model of anal-
ysis. Using CFA, we found the model fit criteria were: chi-square > 0.05, p-value < 0.01,
RMSEA < 0.05, and CFI and TLI > 0.90.
2.2.2. Religious Moderation
The religious moderation scale was constructed from the Ministry of Religious Affairs
(2019) definition of religious moderation. This scale consists of 3 dimensions: national
commitment, nonviolence, and accommodating local culture. This study tested whether
the fifteen items are truly unidimensional, meaning that they only measure religious
moderation. The responses to the questions were provided using a Likert scale with four
points (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, and 4 = strongly agree).
To test the construct validity of religious moderation scale, we used a multiple-factor
model of analysis. Using CFA, we found the model fit criteria were: chi-square > 0.05,
p-value < 0.01, RMSEA < 0.05, and CFI and TLI > 0.90.
2.2.3. Sex
Sex was one of the demographic variables we tested in the regression model in this
study. We used a dummy coding of 1 = man and 2 = woman to code sex as a dichotomous
categorical variable.
3. Results
3.1. Scale Validation
3.1.1. Central Religiosity Scale Validation Result
From the results of the CFA with the one-factor model, we found that the model did
not fit, with chi-square = 173.46, df = 5, p-value = 0.00000, and RMSEA = 0.242. Therefore,
we modified the model so the measurement errors on some items were free to correlate with
each other. As such, we obtained a fit model with chi-square = 0.90, df = 2, p-value = 0.63679,
and RMSEA = 0.000. The next step was to determine the validity of each item of religiosity.
The results are provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Validity of religiosity items.
Item Coefficient SE t-Value Result
1 0.80 0.05 17.57 Valid
2 0.57 0.04 13.26 Valid
3 0.72 0.04 16.52 Valid
4 0.70 0.05 15.06 Valid
5 0.62 0.05 13.67 Valid
Note: valid = t-value > 1.96.
Based on the table, we found that all five items had a t-score higher than 1.96 and were
all valid religiosity measures.
3.1.2. Religious Moderation Scale Validation Result
From the CFA results with the one-factor model, we found a model that did not fit, with
chi-square = 1222.64, df = 90, p-value = 0.00000, and RMSEA = 0.148. Therefore, we modified
the model, where the measurement errors on some items were free to correlate with each
other. This produced a model that fit with chi-square = 1.22, df = 18, p-value = 1.00000, and
RMSEA = 0.000. We report the validity test of each item of religious moderation in Table 2.
Religions 2022,13, 451 6 of 11
Table 2. Validity of religious moderation items.
Item Coefficient SE t-Value Result
1 0.65 0.05 12.39 Valid
2 0.22 0.04 5.04 Valid
3−0.13 0.04 −2.91 Invalid
4 0.45 0.04 10.80 Valid
5 0.72 0.04 16.79 Valid
6 0.60 0.08 7.42 Valid
7 0.36 0.05 7.36 Valid
8 0.33 0.05 6.99 Valid
9−0.14 0.05 −2.93 Invalid
10 0.87 0.04 22.91 Valid
11 0.61 0.04 15.15 Valid
12 0.57 0.05 11.25 Valid
13 0.77 0.04 19.11 Valid
14 0.40 0.04 9.00 Valid
15 0.76 0.04 19.39 Valid
Note: valid = t-value > 1.96.
Based on the results in Table 2, we found two invalid items, 3 and 9, because these
items received a t-value score of less than 1.96. The other items were valid, meaning they
could measure the concept or variable of religious moderation in this study. Thus, we
excluded items 3 and 9 from the measurement of religious moderation.
3.2. Test of Hypothesis
Initially, we discovered that most students at state Islamic higher education institutions
could be moderate (Table 3). In detail, we found 108 respondents (18.7%) in the low category,
331 respondents (57.3%) in the medium category, and 139 respondents (24%) in the high-
religiosity category. Similarly, with nearly the same numbers and percentages, the level of
religious moderation tended to be moderate: 110 respondents (19%) were categorized as
low, 347 respondents (60%) as moderate, and 121 respondents (20.9%) as high.
Table 3. Religiosity and religious moderation.
Variable
Frequency %
Low Moderate High
Religiosity 108 (18.7%) 331 (57.3%) 139 (24%)
Religious Moderation 110 (19%) 347 (60%) 121 (20.9%)
To test the research hypothesis, we used multiple linear regression analysis. In regres-
sion analysis, three aspects are considered. First, the R
2
determines the variation in the
dependent variable caused by variation in the independent variables. Second, the results of
the F-test are obtained, which determine whether the R
2
is significant. Third, the T-test is
performed to determine the regression coefficient of each independent and its significance.
We tested the hypothesis by obtaining the R
2
, which showed the percentage of varia-
tion in the dependent variable in this study, religious moderation, caused by all independent
variables (socio-economic characteristics and religiosity). The R2is provided in Table 4.
Table 4. R2results in this study.
Model R R2Adjusted R2SE of the Estimate
1 0.294 a0.086 0.078 8.84730
aDependent variable: religious moderation.
Based on the results in Table 4, we found that the R
2
was 0.086 or 8.6%. This means
that 8.6% of the variation in religious moderation could be explained by sex, student
Religions 2022,13, 451 7 of 11
organization, parental income, allowance amount, and religiosity. The remaining 91.4%
was explained by other variables not considered in this study. After obtaining the R
2
, we
conducted the F test to analyze the impact of all the studied independent variables on the
dependent variable, religious moderation. The results of the F test are provided in Table 5.
Table 5. ANOVA results.
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 4229.992 5 845.998 10.808 0.000 b
Residual 44,773.151 572 78.275
Total 49,003.143 577
bPredictors: (constant), sex, student organization, parents’ income, amount of allowance, and religiosity.
Based on the R
2
and its significance from multiple regression analysis, we considered
the regression coefficient of each independent variable. The regression coefficients for each
independent variable obtained from the T-test are shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Regression coefficients for each independent variable.
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Model B SE Beta T Sig.
Constant 36.401 2.804 12.984 0.000
Sex −0.2145 −0.749 −0.116 −2.865 0.004 *
Student Organization 0.029 0.140 0.008 0.207 0.836
Parental Income 2.034 0.899 −0.096 2.263 0.024 *
Amount of Allowance 0.301 0.649 −0.020 0.464 0.643
Religiosity 0.282 0.044 0.255 6.358 0.000 *
Dependent variable: religious moderation. *, significant (sig. < 0.05).
Based on Table 6, we determined the regression coefficient for each independent
variable, and we formulated the regression equation as follows:
Religious moderation = 36.401
−
0.2145 sex + 0.029 student organizations + 2.034
parents’ income + 0.301 amount of allowance + 0.282 religiosity.
We provide the significant regression coefficient in the significant value column in
Table 6, where a value < 0.05 means that the coefficient had a significant effect on the
dependent variable. In the following, we explain the regression coefficient for each inde-
pendent variable:
1.
The regression coefficient for sex was 0.004. Thus, the null hypothesis (Ho), which
stated that sex had no significant effect on religious moderation, was rejected. This
means that sex has a significant effect on religious moderation.
2.
The regression coefficient of student organization was 0.836. Thus, the null hypothesis
(Ho), which stated that student organizations had no significant effect on religious
moderation, was accepted.
3.
The regression coefficient of the parents’ income was 0.024. Thus, the null hypothesis
(Ho), which stated that parental income had no significant effect on religious modera-
tion, was rejected. This means that the parent’s income significantly affected religious
moderation. The direction of the positive coefficient showed that the higher the
parental income, the higher the level of students’ religious moderation, and vice versa.
4.
The regression coefficient of the amount of allowance was 0.643. Thus, the null
hypothesis (Ho), which stated that the amount of allowance had no significant effect
on religious moderation, was accepted.
5.
The regression coefficient for religiosity was 0.000. Thus, the null hypothesis (Ho),
which stated that religiosity had no significant effect on religious moderation, was
rejected. This means that religiosity had a significant effect on religious moderation.
Religions 2022,13, 451 8 of 11
The direction of the positive coefficient showed that the higher the level of students’
religiosity, the higher the level of their religious moderation, and vice versa.
Based on Table 6and the explanation above, we found that three variables had a
significant effect on religious moderation: religiosity, sex, and parental income; the other
two variables, student organization and the allowance amount, had no significant effect
on religious moderation among students at state Islamic higher educational institutions
in Indonesia.
4. Discussion
The research results show that religious moderation can be partly explained by reli-
giosity and socio-economic factors.
First, we found that religiosity positively affected religious moderation. Those who
had a high level of religiosity tended to have a high level of religious moderation. This
means that religious intellectuality, ideology, public practice, private practice, and religious
experience support a person in being moderately religious (high in religious tolerance,
national commitment, and accommodating local culture).
We found that every aspect of religiosity explained by Huber and Huber (2012), namely
intellectual, ideology, public practice, private practice, and religious experience, correlated
with a religiously moderate person. Religious intolerance, low national commitment,
and low accommodating local culture could be prevented if a person shows high religious
intellectuality, ideology, private practice, and religious experience. Furthermore, researchers
can test what dimension of religiosity is related to extremist behavior in the future.
Our findings are close to those of PPIM, showing that students with a high religiosity
tend to have moderate religious attitudes and actions (PPIM 2018). Other researchers
explained religiosity as the essential variable that supports religious intolerance at the
individual level. Yusuf et al. (2020) found that the level of religiosity was closely related to
religious intolerance. Their analysis of the effect of socio-economic characteristics on reli-
gious intolerance showed that religiosity was the only variable at the individual level that
had a statistically significant and robust relationship with all types of religious intolerance.
Setiawan et al. (2020) found that members of the Muslim community tended to support
inter-religious conflict. Religiosity plays an important but varying role in supporting inter-
religious conflicts in society, including Indonesia. Other dimensions of religiosity have
different relationships with religious conflict. Although religious beliefs significantly
influence the support of religious conflict, their influence varies. Whereas some views
and fundamentalism favor legitimate protest, religious centrism contributes to supporting
the legitimate and violent protest. A rite of passage is a contributing factor to inter-
religious conflict.
Religious practices support inter-religious conflicts, whereas religious salience reduces
the support for violent hostility toward outside groups. The differences in the findings of
these studies are due to differences in the concept of religiosity used. We used Huber and
Huber’s (2012) concept of religiosity in this study.
Furthermore, Hoffman (2020) revealed that religious behavior in the Arab world, in
general, has an ambiguous influence on tolerance. People who frequent a mosque tend to
be more intolerant of other sects than those who rarely attend. In Lebanon, this process
occurs through a group identification mechanism. Attendance at mosques encourages
higher levels of sectarian identification, making them feel different from other denomina-
tions. Participation in communal worship increases sectarian solidarity at the expense of
sympathy for other denominations.
On the other hand, private worship positively influences tolerance in the Arab world
and Lebanon. It is much similar to the Indonesian context. Still, our findings confirm that
one must clearly understand his religion (as described in the intellectual and ideological
dimensions), have good religious practices (public and private), and experience to be
more moderate in thinking and behaving. Further research is a recommendation to gain a
complete understanding of these dynamics.
Religions 2022,13, 451 9 of 11
This study found that religiosity was not the only variable supporting religious moder-
ation: sex also had a significant effect on religious moderation. The beta score showed that
men are more moderate than women (coding 1 for men and 2 for women). This finding
somewhat differs from Huber and Krech (2009), based on population-representative data
from 21 countries, including Indonesia. Their findings show that women were slightly
more pluralistic than men on the attitude level (stand. Beta +0.04), and men were somewhat
more fundamentalist than women (stand. Beta
−
0.03). This difference should be further
discussed and investigated. We suspect that men have more access to and participation in
public in the Indonesian Muslim context, especially regarding religion and state participa-
tion. This may lead to men being more moderate, especially if we consider the dimension of
religious moderation that we used in this research: national commitment, rejecting violence,
and accommodating local culture.
In this study, parental income had a significant effect on religious moderation. The
beta value was negative, meaning that when parental income increases will reduce religious
moderation. Ideally, parents’ income would allow their children to receive high-quality
religious education and interact with people of various religions. However, in Indonesia
today, many people in the upper economic circles prefer religious/spiritual conversion,
becoming fundamentalists. They send their children to inclusive schools that provide
fundamentalist-based religious teachings.
The negative influence of parental income is supported by the annual survey of reli-
gious harmony by the Agency for Religious Research and Development (2019), which found
that socio-economic factors affect the religious harmony index. However, these findings do
not further explain which socio-economic factors influence or direction the index.
Finally, we found that student organizations and the allowance received from parents
were not related to religious moderation. A student’s involvement in an organization
did not influence the student’s religious status (e.g., moderate/extreme). We suggest that
future studies question the value of the student organization and not just the students’
participation in an organization. The number of organizations in which students participate
may also be valuable information. Hendrastomo et al. (2019) reported that the more
social the individual, in this case, through the association with student organizations, the
more moderate they are. This might be related to the number of organizations in which
students participate.
The allowance amount could not explain religious moderation. This means that one
may become a religious moderate regardless of their allowance. Conversely, extremists
may have either a rich or poor background in the Indonesian context.
5. Conclusions and Outlook
Our findings show that religiosity has a significant positive effect on religious modera-
tion. This finding notably differs from those obtained in most previous studies that upheld
an adverse effect of religiosity, especially the dimensions of congregational prayer and rite
of passage, on religious tolerance, both external and internal. This finding also emphasizes
the Centrality of Religiosity Scale by Huber and Huber (2012), supporting the existence
of harmony, tolerance, and radicalism prevention. Individuals should clearly understand
their religion (as explained by the intellectual and ideology dimensions), perform religious
practices (public and private), and engage in experiences to become more moderate in their
thinking and behavior. Further research is recommended to gain a complete understanding
of this dynamic.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, I.S. and Z.Z.; Data curation, Z.Z., R.L. and S.S.; Formal
analysis, Z.Z. and R.L.; Funding acquisition, Z.Z. and S.S.; Investigation, R.L. and S.S.; Methodology,
R.L.; Project administration, S.S.; Software, R.L.; Supervision, I.S. and Z.Z.; Validation, R.L.; Writing—
original draft, I.S. and Z.Z.; Writing—review & editing, Z.Z. and R.L. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
Religions 2022,13, 451 10 of 11
Institutional Review Board Statement:
The study was conducted in accordance with the Decla-
ration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board statement (PVC Research and
Community Engagement, UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta; Ethical Clearance No. B-381/LP2M/HM-
01.5/12/2021).
Informed Consent Statement:
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study. We anticipated no risks associated with the study. The information we collected in this
study was anonymous, and the data collected were maintained and kept for research or educational
purposes only.
Data Availability Statement:
The data presented in this study are available upon request from the
corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: We acknowledge the support given by UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta for the
2020 research grant.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1. The Centrality of Religiosity Scale (CRS).
No Dimension Original Item Modified Item Indonesian Translation
1 Intellectual How often do you think about
religious issues?
I often think/study
religious topics.
Saya sering berpikir/mempelajari
tentang topik-topik keagamaan.
2 Ideology To what extent do you believe that
God exists?
I believe in the proof of
God’s power.
Saya percaya pada bukti-bukti
kekuasaan Tuhan.
3 Public practice How often do you take part in
public services?
I often participate in religious
activities in the community.
Saya sering berpartisipasi dalam
aktivitas keagamaan di
masyarakat.
4 Private practice How often do you pray? I often perform obligatorily and
recommended prayers.
Saya sering melaksanakan shalat
wajib dan shalat sunnah.
5 Experience
How often do you experience
situations in which you have the
feeling that God intervenes in
your life?
I often experience situations where
I feel God’s intervention in my life
Saya sering mengalami situasi
dimana saya merasakan ada
campur tangan Tuhan dalam
kehidupan saya.
Table A2. Religious moderation scale.
No Dimension Indonesian Versions English Versions
1 National Commitment 1. Saya menerima Pancasila sebagai
ideologi negara. 1. I accept Pancasila as the state ideology
2. Saya menghargai akan keragaman ideologi
lain yang ada di negara ini.
2. I appreciate the diversity of other ideologies
that exist in this country.
3. Ideologi lain selain Pancasila adalah salah
(reverse item).
3. Other ideologies except Pancasila are wrong
(reverse item).
2 Rejecting violence 4. Membela agama dengan cara kekerasan
adalah cara yang salah. 4. Defending religion by violence is wrong.
5. Agama tidak mengajarkan saya kekerasan,
maka saya bersikap bijak dalam bertindak.
5. Religion does not teach me violence, so
act wisely.
6. Saya memandang bahwa agama lain adalah
musuh bagi agama saya, maka saya harus
perangi (reverse item),
6. I think that other religions are enemies of
my religion, so I have to fight them
(reverse item).
7. Saya rela melakukan tindak kekerasan atas
dasar agama saya (reverse item).
7. I am willing to commit acts of violence
based on my religion (reverse item).
8. Tindak kekerasan atas dasar agama
tidak dibenarkan.
8. Acts of violence based on religion are
not justified.
9. Apabila agama saya dihina, maka saya siap
membela agama saya dengan cara apapun
(reverse item).
9. If my religion is insulted, then I am ready to
defend my religion in any way (reverse item).
Religions 2022,13, 451 11 of 11
Table A2. Cont.
No Dimension Indonesian Versions English Versions
3 Accommodating Local Culture 10. Agama mengajarkan saya untuk
menghargai setiap budaya lokal.
10. Religion teaches me to respect every
local culture.
11. Kebudayaan lokal tidak dibenarkan dalam
agama saya (reverse item).
11. Local culture is not allowed in my religion
(reverse item).
12. Setiap budaya memiliki nilai yang baik. 12. Every culture has good values.
13. Saya menghargai keragaman budaya lokal
yang ada. 13. I appreciate the diversity of local cultures.
14. Apabila kebudayaan lokal bertentangan
dari agama saya, maka saya tetap menghargai
budaya tersebut.
14. If the local culture conflicts with my
religion, I still respect that culture.
15. Bersikap toleransi dengan banyak
kebudayaan adalah tindakan yang tepat.
15. Being tolerant of many cultures is the right
thing to do.
References
Ali, Nuraliah. 2020. Measuring religious moderation among Muslim students at public colleges in Kalimantan facing disruption era.
Inferensi: Jurnal Penelitian Sosial Keagamaan 14: 1–24. [CrossRef]
Çavdar, Gamze. 2010. Islamist moderation and the resilience of gender: Turkey’s persistent paradox. Totalitarian Movements and Political
Religions 11: 341–57. [CrossRef]
Glock, Charles Y., and Rodney Stark. 1965. Religion and Society in Tension. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company.
Golebiowska, Ewa A. 2004. Religious tolerance in Poland. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 16: 391–416. [CrossRef]
Hassan, Riaz. 2007a. Expression of religosity and blasphemy in modern societies. Asian Journal of Social Socience 35: 111–25. [CrossRef]
Hassan, Riaz. 2007b. On being religious: Pattern of religious commitment in muslim societies. The Muslim World 97: 437–78. [CrossRef]
Hendrastomo, Grendi, Nur Endah Januarti, and Nur Hidayah. 2019. Who is the most tolerance: Minority or majority. In Research for
Social Justice. London: Routledge, pp. 69–75.
Hoffman, Michael. 2020. Religion and tolerance of minority sects in the Arab world. Journal of Conflict Resolution 64: 432–58. [CrossRef]
Huber, Stefan, and Odilo W. Huber. 2012. The centrality of religiosity scale (CRS). Religions 3: 710–24. [CrossRef]
Huber, Stefan, and Volkhard Krech. 2009. The Religious Field between Globalization and Regionalization—Comparative Perspectives.
In What the World Believes: Analysis and Commentary on the Religion Monitor 2008. Edited by Stiftung Bertelsmann. Gütersloh:
Bertelsmann, pp. 53–93.
Ministry of Religious Affairs. 2019. Moderasi Beragama. Jakarta: Badan Litbang dan Diklat Keagamaan.
Ministry of Religious Affairs. 2020. Policy Paper: Potret Kerukunan Masyarakat Indonesia 2020, Tantangan dan Solusi. Puslitbang Bimas
Agama dan Layanan Keagamaan. Jakarta: Badan Litbang dan Diklat Kementrian Agama Republik Indonesia.
PPIM. 2018. Api dalam sekam: Keberagamaan generasi Z. Covey Report 1: 1.
Setara Institute. 2019. Tipologi keberagamaan mahasiswa: Survei di 10 perguruan tinggi negeri. Press Release Jakarta, June 20.
Setiawan, Tery, Edwin B. P. De Jong, Peer L. H. Scheepers, and Carl J. A. Sterkens. 2020. The relation between religiosity dimensions
and support for interreligious conflict in Indonesia. Archive for the Psychology of Religion 42: 244–61. [CrossRef]
Spierings, Niels. 2019. The Multidimensional Impact of Islamic Religiosity on Ethno-religious Social Tolerance in the Middle East and
North Africa. Social Forces 97: 1693–730. [CrossRef]
Suhartawan, Budi. 2021. Wawasan Al-Quran Tentang Moderasi Beragama. Ulumul Qur’an: Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Al-Qur’an dan Tafsir
1: 50–64.
Van der Jagt, Willeke, Margreet R. de Vries-Schot, Patricia A. M. van Deurzen, Helen Klip, and Jan K. Buitelaar. 2018. Religious
harmony/disharmony and mental health in pre-adolescents and adolescents. Archives of Psychology 2: 3.
Yusuf, Arief Anshory, Akhmad Rizal Shidiq, and Hariyadi Hariyadi. 2020. On socio-economic predictors of religious intolerance:
Evidence from a large-scale longitudinal survey in the largest Muslim democracy. Religions 11: 21. [CrossRef]
